Results 1161 - 1180 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1161 | Should one try to be clear or muddled? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101171 | ||
Should one try to be clear or muddled? 'There's another problem, and it's a practical one. I'm not supposed to seek to be clever or persuasive or to use arguments to convince, apparently. Then what am I to do? If we shouldn't use arguments to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? What do I say then when communicating my faith? If I'm not supposed to seek to be clever or persuasive or to use arguments to convince, then what am I to do? Should I work at being clear when I communicate? Or should I try to be muddled lest I depend on clarity and not the Spirit to make the difference? Should I give reasons for what I believe or only gently make assertions with a smile on my face being careful not to respond to challenges someone might raise lest it sound like I'm trying to argue for the Gospel and not depend on the Holy Spirit?' ____________________ Quoted from the transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. |
||||||
1162 | Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101676 | ||
Apologetics Defined The reply that begins "Oh Lord! anyone who knows anything about..." is an interesting example of a non-answer to the original question. The question was and is, "Should one try to be clear or muddled?" It is a subtopic under the original question, which is: Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? Apologetics Defined. 'The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia," pronounced, "ap-ol-og-ee’-ah." It means, "a verbal defense." It is used eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1;7,17; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. ( . . . ) 'Therefore, Christian apologetics is that branch of Christianity that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, and logic. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage. The latter case is by far the most common and you don’t have to read a ton of books to do that. ( . . . ) 'Basically, apologetics is equivalent to theology in sneakers. It means getting the hay down off the loft and down to where the cows can eat it. Anyone can ‘do’ apologetics. All it takes is a willingness, a little work, and the Spirit of God in you' (http://www.carm.org/apologetics/intro.htm). --Radioman2 |
||||||
1163 | What are we to say? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Radioman2 | 101679 | ||
Are Christian apologetics unbiblical? But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a LOGICAL DEFENSE to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [Isa. 8:12, 13.] (AMPLIFIED 1 Peter 3:15 Emphasis added.) If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? I have been challenged a number of times recently on the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion in the defense of the gospel. In other words, the whole idea of Christian apologetics is called into question as being unbiblical. For example, one reader said: "don't resort to...arguments to evade the clear statements of truth in the Bible,...be guided by Bible truth and put our trust in it first and foremost." (On the surface, this sounds OK. However, if you read this quote in the context of the post in which it is written, you will see there is more to it than meets the eye.) Another wrote: "I want to see Scripture not no (sic) mumbo jumbo from Strong['s] or any other different references. I want Scripture." Another asked: "Is this article inspired by revelation, or, the Spirit of the living God, or, is it man's wisdom?" The implication by these readers seems to be: you must choose between the use of intellectual arguments and rational persuasion or Bible verses alone; it's either/or. The assumption here is that the two are mutually exclusive options. If we shouldn't use arguments[footnote 1] to promote the Gospel--because it's leaning on human wisdom and not God--then what are we to say? How would you answer this question? Please tell us why you answer as you do. Whatever the reasoning behind your answer, tell us what it is. John Reformed, I appreciate your clear and relevant answer. However, if other answers are muddled and not clear, then you all will have answered the question by default. ------------- [Footnote 1] When I use the word "argument" here, I do not mean it in the sense of "quarrel" or "disagreement." I mean it in the following sense: "argument -- 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade 3 b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). --Radioman2 |
||||||
1164 | sons of god as in early gen | 1 Pet 3:19 | Radioman2 | 80187 | ||
"Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them." - - - - - - - - - - The Nephilim in the Bible are "people of great size and strength. The Hebrew word means 'fallen ones.' In men's eyes they were the 'mighty men...of old, men of renown,' but in God's eyes they were sinners ('fallen ones') ripe for judgment." (Zondervan NASB Study Bile, p. 12) "Gen 6:4 Nephilim. From a root meaning 'to fall'; i.e., to fall upon others because they were men of strength (only other use of this Hebrew word is in Num 13:33) Evidently they were in the earth before the marriages of Gen 6:2, and were not the offspring of those marriages from which came the *mighty* men (military men) and *men of renown * (of wealth or power)". (p. 16, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) "Gen 6:1-4 *sons of God.* The 'sons of God' may mean God's created, supernatural beings, who were no longer godly in character (6.3). Some commentators believe, however, that this expression refers to the 'godly line' of Seth and that 'daughters of humans' (v. 4 in the NRSV) refer to women from the line of Cain. Most likely the phrase refers to those descendants of Seth who trusted in the Lord but whose children intermarried with women descended from Cain. Those marriages were not with angels then, but between godly and ungodly human families. Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mt 22:30), so that this verse hardly applies to them. ... *Nephilim* are strong, violent, tyrannous men of great wickedness. It may well be that the explanation of these verses has been lost to us." (NRSV Harper Study Bible, Harold Lindsell, Ph.D., D.D., Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991) |
||||||
1165 | sons of god as in early gen | 1 Pet 3:19 | Radioman2 | 80188 | ||
You write: "We find a few references to these spirits throghout the bible as in the case of Peter 3:19-20. Having served their sentence they were relesaed from spirit prison." Have they served their sentence? Were they released from spirit prison? No, they were not. Instead they have been "kept in ETERNAL BONDS under darkness FOR (until) THE JUDGMENT of the great day." AMPLIFIED Jude 1:6 And angels who did not keep (care for, guard, and hold to) their own first place of power but abandoned their proper dwelling place--these He has reserved in custody in eternal chains (bonds) under the thick gloom of utter darkness until the judgment and doom of the great day. NASB Jude 1:6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, |
||||||
1166 | Why will God judge the church? | 1 Pet 4:17 | Radioman2 | 97386 | ||
Will God judge the church? And if so, why? Aren't we promised to be spared God's wrath in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9? Aren't we told in Romans 8:1 that those who are in Christ Jesus are not subject to condemnation? What does the apostle Peter mean in 1 Peter 4:17? |
||||||
1167 | Please explain this "pure blood line". | 2 Pet 2:4 | Radioman2 | 96931 | ||
Only 1 of 4 translations I consulted uses the word "replenish". All 3 of the others use the word "fill." . . . Gen 1:28 (KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and *replenish* the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. . . . Gen. 1:28 (Amplified) And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply and *fill* the earth... . . . Gen 1:28 (NASB) God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and *fill* the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." . . . Gen 1:28 (The NET Bible) God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply! *Fill* the earth and subdue it! |
||||||
1168 | 2 Peter 2:20-and overcome/are overcome | 2 Pet 2:20 | Radioman2 | 79820 | ||
2 Peter 2:20 (NET Bible) For if after they have escaped the filthy things of the world through the rich knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they again get entangled in them and succumb to them,[77] [FN 77] Greek “they again, after becoming entangled in them, are overcome by them.” New English Translation (http://www.netbible.com) |
||||||
1169 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 76752 | ||
2 Peter 3:9 (NET Bible) The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any[4] to perish but for all to come to repentance. Footnote 4. "He does not wish for any to perish." '...the literary context seems to be against the Arminian view, while the historical context seems to be against (one representation of) the Calvinist view. The answer to this conundrum is found in the term "wish" (a participle in Greek from the verb boulomai). It often represents a mere wish, or one's desiderative will, rather than one's resolve. Unless God's will is viewed on the two planes of his desiderative and decretive will (what he desires and what he decrees), hopeless confusion will result. The scriptures amply illustrate both that God sometimes decrees things that he does not desire and desires things that he does not decree. It is not that his will can be thwarted, nor that he has limited his sovereignty. But the mystery of God's dealings with humanity is best seen if this tension is preserved. Otherwise, either God will be perceived as good but impotent or as a sovereign taskmaster. Here the idea that God does not wish for any to perish speaks only of God's desiderative will, without comment on his decretive will.' (http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_3) * * * * * * * * * * * * * (Although this post is not a question, I have chosen to post it under the heading of Questions for this reason: Often a person will not respond to a Note unless it is addressed specifically to that person. However, the same person may respond to a post that is labeled as a Question. In other words, I posted this as a question in hopes that it will not be ignored or overlooked.) Radioman2 |
||||||
1170 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81238 | ||
You write: "DON'T debate Arminian / Calvinist views..." I ask you: Who is debating Arminian/Calvinist views? Am I? You write: "Radioman2 and others ... just answer the question of how you see God's wish(es) apart from your Arminian or Calvinist view." I ask: Which view do I hold -- Arminian or Calvinist? If you tell me which I am (Arminian or Calvinist), then we'll both know. What makes you assume I am either Arminian or Calvinist? Radioman2 |
||||||
1171 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81288 | ||
Searcher56: You write: "DON'T debate Arminian / Calvinist views..." I ask you: Who is debating Arminian/Calvinist views? Am I? You write: "Radioman2 and others ... just answer the question of how you see God's wish(es) apart from your Arminian or Calvinist view." I ask: Which view do I hold -- Arminian or Calvinist? If you tell me which I am (Arminian or Calvinist), then we'll both know. What makes you assume I am either Arminian or Calvinist? Radioman2 |
||||||
1172 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81290 | ||
Searcher: I am no adherent to the TULIP doctrine. You have problems with both Calvinism and Arminianism? So do I! Lots of problems! :-) For the record, if I have taken a position for one view and against the other, it's news to me. I am not now, nor have I ever thought of myself as, either a Calvinist or an Arminianist. Maybe I should make the previous sentence part of my signature on each post I submit. :-) Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
1173 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81292 | ||
Is there a question in my post, ID# 76752? No, there is not, just as I said in my post. | ||||||
1174 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81299 | ||
ROFL! Good one, Joe. That might not be a bad idea. I'll have to think about what I should call myself in order to identify myself theologically. Radioman2 |
||||||
1175 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81311 | ||
"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world..." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hank: You write: "One is pressed in today's world to accept one label or another, and if he refuses to do so, along will come the label makers and slap one on him anyway." How very true! If I am an advocate of neither Calvinism nor Arminianism, then what do I believe? I believe: NASB Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. AMPLIFIED Ephesians 1:4 Even as [in His love] He chose us [actually picked us out for Himself as His own] in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy (consecrated and set apart for Him) and blameless in His sight, even above reproach, before Him in love. NASB 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Radioman2 |
||||||
1176 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81315 | ||
TULIP T - Total Depravity U - Unconditional Election L - Limited Atonement I - Irresistible Grace P - Preservation of the Saints 'T.U.L.I.P - This is the Acronym for the Calvinist Perspective, for an in depth view of this perspective see: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html This site explains it quite well!' (Quoted from ID# 17873 by user: lovetosign) (I found this information by using the Search feature at StudyBibleForum.com and searching for the word: T.U.L.I.P.) |
||||||
1177 | I hate to appear ignorant | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81316 | ||
TULIP T - Total Depravity U - Unconditional Election L - Limited Atonement I - Irresistible Grace P - Preservation of the Saints 'T.U.L.I.P - This is the Acronym for the Calvinist Perspective, for an in depth view of this perspective see: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html This site explains it quite well!' (Quoted from ID# 17873 by user: lovetosign) (I found this information by using the Search feature at StudyBibleForum.com and searching for the word: T.U.L.I.P.) |
||||||
1178 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81375 | ||
Calvinism and Arminianism are "issues on which Christians can and do hold different views without denying or seriously distorting the essential doctrines of the Bible." - - - - - - - - - - - - - Predestination and Free Will 'The ministry of [the Christian Research Institute] (CRI) is concerned with responding to heretical attacks on, and aberrant distortions of, the Christian faith. Consequently, CRI takes no dogmatic stand on controversial theological issues on which Christians can and do hold different views without denying or seriously distorting the essential doctrines of the Bible. One such area of controversy is the set of issues including predestination, election, the extent of the atonement, and "eternal security." 'The president and most of the staff of CRI adhere to a kind of modified, moderate Calvinism, accepting eternal security while questioning the doctrines of unconditional election and "limited atonement." However, we encourage Christians to study the issues and make up their own minds. " 'CRI does take a strong stand against heretical, extremist variations of these views: for instance, the hyper-Arminian belief that God does not know all things, or the hyper-Calvinist notion that evangelism and prayer are superfluous because everything is already preordained. We urge Christians to avoid such heretical extremes, while recognizing that genuine Christians do disagree over such issues as predestination and eternal security' (http://www.equip.org/free/DA180.htm). |
||||||
1179 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81432 | ||
[The following is generally addressed to all of us. It is addressed to whomever the shoe fits.] I am truly amazed that my comment could spark such a heated debate. Especially when I started this thread with the words, "the literary context seems to be against the Arminian view, while the historical context seems to be against (one representation of) the Calvinist view." After my post, apparently all it took to get the debate going was the admonition not to do so, i.e. "DON'T debate Arminian / Calvinist views ...", which is actually good advice. Having said that, I offer the following tongue-in-cheek rhyme in an attempt to provide a little comic relief to the raging debates that threaten to consume us all. (NOTE: This rhyme is not meant to be taken seriously. It is not intended as a rebuke to any individual or faction. It does not address who is right and who is wrong in the C/A controversy.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - I Find It Such A Strange Thing I find it such a strange thing - mystifying That a group like this could waste its time On striving of this kind. Yes, I can understand that it amuses But to fuss and argue and let it bug you Is hardly in your line. It's not that I object to your contentions But it doesn't fit in well With what we do and say. It doesn't help us if the forum's inconsistent; "They" only need a small excuse to put us all away. --Radioman2 |
||||||
1180 | He does not wish for any to perish... | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81437 | ||
Joe: You ask: "Did Radioman2 provide the post which started the silliness or did I?" I adhere to the motto "Give credit where credit is due." Obviously, Joe, it was you who started the silliness. (I'll have to owe you the scriptural support for my answer.) Signed, A completely unbiased and impartial observer |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ] Next > Last [66] >> |